Woman who won £25,000 damages after crash 'deliberately exaggerated injuries'

Friday 25 July 2008 11:32 BST

A woman is facing a unique High Court bid to put her behind bars because insurers claim she 'deliberately exaggerated' the injuries she suffered in a road crash in a bid to scoop £800,000 in damages.

Joanne Kirk, 45, was involved in a 'rear shunt' accident in September 2001 when another motorist, Carol Walton, collided with the back of her car.

Mrs Kirk, a university administrator, said she had been left 'significantly disabled' by the accident and sued Mrs Walton, seeking total compensation of more than £800,000.

She claimed that the accident caused her to develop fibromyalgia, a condition which causes chronic pain in muscles and ligaments.

Shunt: Joanne Kirk wanted more than £800,000 compensation

Shunt: Joanne Kirk wanted more than £800,000 compensation

She told a court she needed elbow crutches and sometimes a wheelchair to get around, could only walk ten steps without the assistance of another person and was bed-ridden 'on bad days'.

Mrs Walton's insurers did not dispute liability for the accident on the A6 at Bamber Bridge, Lancs, but in the end Mrs Kirk agreed to settle the claim at Stockport County Court for £25,000 on June 26 last year.

But Mrs Walton's insurers later re-examined video surveillance footage gathered by private investigators and, claiming Mrs Kirk had lied about the extent of her disabilities, applied to the High Court in London for permission to bring proceedings for contempt.

Mrs Kirk's barrister Nicholas Braslavski argued that proceedings would be unfair because the footage was not produced until a late stage, giving her no chance to prepare a defence.

But today, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, Mrs Justice Cox granted the insurers' application.

The court heard that they had instructed a doctor who claimed the surveillance footage shows Mrs Kirk 'walking, driving and shopping' and 'does not suggest there is any significant musculo-skeletal pain causing significant disability'.

The judge told the court: 'The defendant's insurers contend that these investigations revealed that the claimant's various statements in documents - verified by a statement of truth - as to the nature and effect of her injuries and disabilities were untrue'.

Mrs Justice Cox added that a consultant rheumatologist instructed by the insurers had 'described her behaviour ... in relation to her present claim as being, in his opinion, "deliberately exaggerated"'.

The consultant concluded that 'exaggeration is the major and probably dominant feature', adding: 'I believe Mrs Kirk's condition is now no worse than before the accident, and she has the same capacity for paid employment and household duties. Mrs Kirk has not developed a new illness of fibromyalgia.'

Prior to disclosure of the footage Mrs Kirk, of New Longton, Preston, Lancs, had been seeking more than £800,000 in damages, the judge said.

'There is, in my judgment, a strong public interest in personal injury claimants pursuing honest claims before the courts,' she added.

'I take into account that fibromyalgia is a controversial and non-specific diagnosis, with a spectrum of symptoms which may be variable, resulting in a sufferer having good days and bad days. All these matters seem to me to go to the merits of the claimant's defence to the allegations and will merit careful consideration at the hearing.

'However, on the material presently before me, there is a strong case which requires an answer from Mrs Kirk in contempt proceedings,' Mrs Justice Cox concluded.

Mrs Kirk will now face a further court hearing at which she will have a full opportunity to defend herself against the insurers' accusations. No date was set for that hearing.